Why do truthers espouse such an out-there theory?

In My Humble Opinion
81

I have a couple of problems with this.

For one, I never said anything about shooting down any planes. Intercept and shoot down are to different things and you are putting words in my mouth. I’m not going to agure this point because the bottom line is that no fighters got anywhere near the airliners. They were never in a position to even try do do anthying. That is a major problem in and of itself.

Second problem is your example of the golfers learjet is not even close to the situation on 911. I’ll admit that I used to use that example before I was aware that F-16’s were already in the air for other reasons.

911 is different because the planes were known to be hijacked for a long period of time before any of them hit their targets. The timeline is very clear on this. In the case of the plane that hit the Pentagon, it flew far to the west, into Ohio! and then turned around unchallenged. Well after both WTC towers had been hit. Meanwhile, our fighters were flying out to sea, away from DC, when the threat was know to be coming from land.

How can this be explained?

82

They knew the general area where the planes were, and the fighters have their own radar. Again you’re putting words in my mouth. I mean really, who ever said it would take an army of people to pull something like this off.

83

You brought it up. Explain. Show your work.

But you are only asking questions. All these questions have been answered. Just look online. You are not the first one to ask. But the biggest symptom of Truthers is that they ask the questions and then refuse to hear the answers unless it fits their theory. The theory that most won’t admit in an open forum and fall back on “I’m only asking question.” Don’t ask if you are not prepared to listen to the answers. Each and every cite you bring up has been debunked. Its been 11 years. You are not a trailblazer.

84

No shit. Military expert? They knew where they were when the transponder went out. In an ever expanding circle at over 500 miles an hour. Look up the term “stern chase.” Without a proper vector it would be difficult to know where to send them. From memory the 4th plane was delayed at takeoff so thats why it happened later. For the 1st 3 planes they had about 40 minutes from the time the transponder went off. You really think that is a long time? This is not the Cold War. There were no flight crews warming up on the runway fully armed. At best there were some flight crews somewhere waiting in a ready room. 5-10 minutes at best. So after the ATC figured out something was wrong, called the military, jets scrambled maybe there was 20 minutes left. Maybe. In that time they had to be vectored in and catch a plane going over 500knots. A plane that they did not have any idea where it was going or its intention. If there were fighters over the ocean I have no doubt that someone sent them to loiter until they could figure out what the fuck was going on. It was an unprecedented event. I can not imagine the horror and panic those ATC guys were going through. But of course they all would have to be in on it too. Each one of those middle class government workers were in lockstep with the evil plan.

85

The transponders being turned off means next to nothing. They are secondary. The planes would have still been visible to primary radars, and they were known to be hijacked. You can maybe make a case for the first plane getting through. Basically your saying that NORAD can track ballistic missles launched from the other side of the world, but can’t track airliners flying in it’s own air sapce because the transponders are off.

It’s clear from the transcripts that ATC and most everyone else thought it was one of the many drills going on that day, at first. But it’s also clear that they reacted in time once they figured out it was not a drill. They did their job.

It’s not a huge leap to see it wouldn’t have to be, and I quote “each one of those middle class government workers in lockstep with this evil plan.”

All it would really take is an officer to hand down an order, I mean, that’s what soliders do right, follow orders?

86

I didn’t say he did. He didn’t have to. Bin Laden took care of that for him. He just had to sit back and do as little as possible, until it happened.

87

What order? From who? To who? To do what?

88
89

Politically feasible is not an issue. The FBI went after Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge as if he were about to blow up the Earth. That ended up biting them in the ass, but they still did it. None of them was suspended or fired for what they did there, either, not even the sociopathic serial killer FBI agent known as Lon Horiuchi.

As far as effective goes, Zacarias Moussaoui was already in custody. Cheney chose not to raise an alert with law enforcement agencies regarding suspected Islamic terrorists in custory. He could have put out a general alert, and asked for the White House to be alerted about any such suspects. He did not.

Al-Qaeda was a known threat ever since before the bombing of the USS Cole, and certainly after. Cheney chose not to do anything at all in response to the many warnings and terrorist acts already committed by Al-Qaeda.

Dude, multiple members of the 9/11 Commission resigned in protest of the White House’s obstruction of their investigation. That says a lot. Think about it. What would the White House have to hide? That’s fucking suspicious.

90

Assuming that this is true (you still have not provided any cites) we can explain it one of two ways.

The first would be to assume it to be unintentional. We can consider the incredible amount of chaos on that day, the fact that nobody knew what was going on, how many planes were hijacked or what they were doing. We can consider that having transponders turned off does make it much harder to track a plane, since it goes from a labeled marker on the ATC screen to an unlabeled dot that looks just like all the other dots. We can keep in mind that the government is not one giant telepathic group-mind, and that information doesn’t reliably and instantly pass from one part of it to another, especially when there are no pre-established channels of communication set up. We can also keep in mind that at the time there was no established procedure for sending fighters to intercept a hijacked plane within the borders of the US, as at the time military defense was focused on threats coming from external airspace. We can also keep in mind that the pilots of the fighter planes are not telepathic, and need to be told where to go and what plane to intercept, and this won’t happen even the moment someone realizes that the hijackers are deliberately crashing planes.

The other alternative would be to assume it was intentional. This requires us to assume that the jet fighters would have been sent to intercept the hijacked planes on time, despite there being no procedure and no precedent for this, but they were prevented from doing so by orders issued by some conspiracy. No evidence of said orders has ever surfaces, so we must assume they were covered up with 100% reliability.

The first explanation requires us to assume people are fallible, and that the government is inefficient and does not respond well to sudden, unexpected, chaotic events.

The second explanation requires us to assume that it is possible for conspiracies of people to form that can orchestrate vast and sinister events with not a single person in the conspiracy deciding to release reliable, verifiable evidence of the conspiracy. It requires coverups to be possible and 100% successful, even a decade after the event.

Personally, I find the first explanation far more in line with my experience of how people and governments behave.

I suppose that’s part of the answer to the question in the OP, however. Conspiracy theorists seem to have no problem believing that large numbers of people will all decide to work together to do something like fake 9/11, that not one member of the conspiracy will decide to betray them, and that furthermore the conspiracy can perfectly arrange things so that not one part of their elaborately complex plan can fail. Once you have decided that a conspiracy like this is at work, any unexpected event - like a fighter plane being sent in the wrong direction - can’t have been a mistake, but MUST therefore be part of the conspiracy’s plan.

91

Well, for the fighter pilots, whomever ordered them to fly out to sea instead of protecting DC. Your questions are pointless of course, there is no way I can answer them. I know you’re tring to bait me. I will say a proper investigation at the time may have been helpful.

92

I am a master baiter.

Asking questions and requiring you to back up your claims with evidence and logic is baiting? Brother you are in the wrong place.
But of course its ok for you to ask questions. You just aren’t supposed to answer any.

And stop baiting me.

93

14 fighters from 5 bases, ok, that sounds about right to me. I won’t argue that.

I do have a few problems with the 4500 number. ATC knew where 4396 of those planes were. Are you really trying to tell me that between ATC, NORAD, and the radar on the fighters the airliners could not be tracked? Remember that the fighters can IFF, they can see the friendly airliners.

94

double post

95

We know that exactly these types of things have happened in the past. I personally think the truth of 911 will come out, at some point. A decade is really nothing.

Read that link, they didn’t admit to that truth untill 1994, and that was kind of minor compared to 911

96

Here is timeline. it backs up everthing I’ve said, even down to the fact that the planes were still visible as bilps on radar without the transponder information. Do the math on this timeline, and it’s clear no effort was made to intercept these planes

I also admit that, at best, a case can be made for the first plane gettting through. The other 3, no way. This clearly shows the planes were known to be hijacked, and therefore a threat.

97

It’s not even remotely comparable.

In the article you cited, the government decided to perform an experiment in which a substance that at the time was thought to be harmless was sprayed onto a neighborhood. Later, the substance was determined not to be harmless. The government covered up what they had done and didn’t admit it for a long time.

This is indeed a type of conspiracy we do see from time to time. A person or group does something, not realizing due to ignorance or outright negligence how bad it will be, and afterwards acts to conceal what happened. Conspiracies to cover your ass after the fact happen. Some of that may have happened with 9/11, with members of the government trying to hide evidence that they should have known beforehand what was going to happen. In that case, it works partly because everyone involved has a good incentive to hide what happened because they were partly responsible.

Truthers claim a different sort of conspiracy, one where hundreds or thousands of people conspire beforehand to do something that they most assuredly know will cause the deaths of thousands, one where they are all taking deliberate actions to cause the event to happen. There’s no way for the conspirators to plausibly tell themselves beforehand that no harm will come of it, like the people responsible for the event you linked could tell themselves that the gas was a harmless tracer. The hypothetical conspirators behind 9/11 would damn well know in advance that they’re going to crash airplanes full of people into crowded office buildings and kill thousands of people. And yet, not a single one of them blew the whistle beforehand, when they could have become a national hero by stopping the conspiracy before it started.

I personally believe that confusion and poor communication between different parts of the government in the face of a sudden, unprecedented, chaotic situation is far more plausible that the kind of sealed group-mind that 9/11 conspiracy theorists require.

98

Nicely stated.

99

The whole subtext of the article is that they mixed in radioactive elements to see the effect. The whole point is that they lied about it right from the start. It’s only now, almost 60 years later, that people are actually taking a closer look at it.

If they were willing to do this, back then, I don’t find it to be that hard to believe they would murder people in 2001.

100

I need to expand on this.

The “gosh darn it, we didn’t know any better” does not work for the time period in the article. It was for damn sure known by then what radioactive posioning could do. I submit that it was fully known that lots of people would die because of this, that’s why they sprayed it on the mostly black neighborhoods. They just wanted to see how deadly it was.

I think this story is an early version of 911, things like this went unanswered for years, so why not pull a 911.

Lucky for us things are different now, and people all over the world question 911. We will no longer be rolled over like those poor basterds were.